UwU ~ Thanks for reading and thanks for philosophizing! Let’s go in reverse order to spin that head more!<br>
Looking for this one? 🤯<br>
We do but not always.<br>
Maybe some connections are contingent but in light of recent advances and establishment in the World do they become necessity. These things safely do make sense (as there’s no such thing as coincidences and destinies).<br>
Jacques Lacan often goes back to the tales and stories within Plato’s works to act as a convenient medium to make something understandable. I mean look at the story of he describes Love and how it relates to Lack, definitely taking a story within Plato’s works.<br>
On Lacan, The Réal is connected heavily with Kant’s Thing-In-Itself thanks to the connections with Freud and GWF Hegel. On my Fiction, imma keep quiet but have fun thinking about Das Ding.<br>
On Levinas and Lacan’s connection: the Other in Lacan’s World (whether in the Mother, the Big Other, the Innocent Third Party that’s never there, God and any other image) has been multi-functioned. But to draw to Hegel, Lacan does see how recognition (from Hegel; he denoted as “a” and being the little other or not the other; which may come back to haunt us as objet petit a) plays a role. However, being that he’s trying to explain Law and Languge (Unconsciousness), he inscribed that the Other (“A” or l’Aueter or The Author) in Unconsciousness while being secondarily another Subject. So, in effect, making Language an Unconscious mechanism (making Consciousness always freak out and to explain the complexities of how a “slip of the tongue” or jokes comes out). To quote Lacan:<br>
“The Other must first of all be considered a locus in which speech is constituted," so that the Other as another subject is secondary to the Other as symbolic order. We can speak of the Other as a <i>subject</i> in a secondary sense only when a subject occupies this position and thereby embodies the Other for another subject."<br>
Yet, compelled on making the Other a reflection of the divided Subject, the Subject to will come to realize the Other is incomplete (thanks to the M(Other) no less) despite being a trove of signifiers. So Lacan decides to denote the “barred/divided” Other as another Subject as A with a slash through it.<br>
But to get back to the Sartrean-Hegel (even though Sartrean was a radical Dialectician after being compelled by Marxism to steer a bit away from Dialectical Idealism) Other brought about by Levinas (per yer report of him): it could easily overlap in how the Other acts as this gravitating point for a person, who can even manage to steer one’s reflection (little other) and ability to function (Other and barred Other), yet Lacan and Levinas would disagree if the Subject has to be wholly conscious on the Other but would agree that it has the compellingness (which then they completely veer away on how it works but shall probably relate back to Hegel somehow).<br>
Good qs.<br>
🥰😭Still feeling like this over the Curie vote and now feel loved (in the Conscious sense, maybe Jouissance sense as well) after blushing so much 😭🥰<br>
Hope I created more qs, CHECK OUT THE DAMN ARTICLES-N-SOURCES!<br>
<center></center>